Meanwhile SP3 actually *does* speed up XP a bit and the idle memory footprint is a little less. Go figure.
Vista = Windows ME part II Pure garbage. > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:08:01 -0400 > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [H] Vista SP1 comments > > I've been trying to speed up Vista machines for customers (I've been > doing this for sometime with XP) and as a benchmark, I measure the following: > > Boot time (from power on until I can see the icons in My Computer. > Time to drops below 5% for 10 seconds straight.) > Shutdown time (from clicking Turn Off until the computer powers off.) > > Now Vista is slower than XP on all three tests on every machine I've > tried (I've even done fresh installs of XP vs fresh installs of > Vista.) Now I'm not saying Vista sucks because it boots more slowly, > but it certainly isn't a plus for the OS. > > Here is the funny part. From what I've read, SP1 is supposed to > speed up Vista. But in every test I've done (five systems so far, > and one clean install) SP1 slows the first two benchmarks by from 30% > to 50%. Now I find that ridiculous. I haven't read up on SP1, so > maybe it's giving all sorts of other exciting new features and the > "better stability and performance" that MS talks about wasn't the > main purpose, but one would think that given that performance is one > of the huge complaints about Vista, MS would have tried to do > something to make it faster. (And since boot time and shutdown time > are two of the major areas that end users recognize as issues, these > would be something to look at.) > > So from what I'm seeing here, SP1 is not going to save Vista. > > T > > _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
